Lead Story

Zoning Amendment To Overhaul
Countywide Comprehensive Policy Plan
 

On September 10, the Fairfax County Planning & Development Staff released a report with proposals to review and update current Comprehensive Policy Plan elements, add new ones as needed, and ensure the Policy Plan aligns with the Countywide Strategic Plan, the One Fairfax Policy, and other recent policies. The Board of Supervisors approved this amendment in December 2022.

The Comprehensive Plan is a creature of statute.  The Virginia Code directs the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive plan.  According to Virginia law, the Planning Commission is charged with conducting careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, as well as the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The plan shall be made to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the territory that will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

Fairfax County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan in 1958. Since then, the plan has been updated regularly as the population grew and housing needs changed. By law, the plan must be reviewed at least every five years. The Policy Plan, first adopted in 1990, was last updated in September 2024 by the Board of Supervisors. This document is important because it guides decisions on plan changes and development applications. In most cases, new development must follow the guidance in the Plan.

According to staff commentary, this amendment reflects a shift away from language that recommends “protection of neighborhoods” in favor of language that focuses on “thoughtful integration of land uses to enhance communities and provide additional housing opportunities.”  It tends to use broad language that also represents a departure from some of the straightforward terminology used in earlier Plans.  For example, the Board adopted Plan of 1973 contained 18 Policies.  Policy 1 stated “Fairfax County is committed to improving the quality of life through local and regional comprehensive planning and development control systems, which facilitate the effective allocation of public resources and shape development patterns.”  Policy 12 addressed Open space and the support of the conservation of appropriate land areas in a natural state.  Policy 18 addressed Preserving Existing Residential and Open Space by ensuring growth takes place in accordance with criteria and standards designed to preserve, enhance, and protect existing residential areas and open space, such as farmland, and achieve an orderly and esthetic mix of residential, commercial/industrial facilities and open space without compromising the existing quality of life of existing residential development.

The language of these earlier plans is very different from what staff propose for the 2025 amendment. For example, the amendment introduces terms such as “Realm Amenities,” which refers to publicly accessible parks, open spaces, and pedestrian areas within communities. The new text also suggests that access to these amenities affects many things, including affordable housing, public facilities, recreation, healthy communities, industrial conservation, the environment, and heritage resources. However, it does not clearly explain how access to parks and open spaces actually relates to housing affordability. Other vague terms appear as well, such as replacing “community members” with “public realm,” which in this context means the shared spaces and facilities accessible to everyone in the community.

The amendment moves away from previous clear, protective language and instead adopts terms that are more abstract, leading to broader interpretations that may weaken protections. This shift appears intentional, aiming to loosen prior safeguards for neighborhoods while aligning land use and policy with current county strategies. The underlying objective is to make the Policy Plan more flexible and adaptable, potentially at the expense of existing residential protections.

The plan also introduces a new idea called the “Suburban Village Center,” which is meant to allow more flexibility in developing commercial areas. Staff describe these centers as suitable for mixed-use projects and medium-density housing. But to be called a Suburban Village Center, an area must be along a main road, an arterial roadway, such as Georgetown Pike. This change could make it easier to redevelop places like our Great Falls Center, which now mostly has shops and restaurants. While this approach is new and simpler, more details and explanations are needed to understand how it will affect future development.  But based on the encouragement of development that this Policy Plan supports, it is fair to say that this could open the door to “mixed-use development which would involve stacked townhouses incorporated with retail on ground level—the trend that we have observed emerging in and around Fairfax and Loudoun counties.

In the Plan’s Overview, we learn that this Plan proposes to “address the opportunities associated with the next stages of Fairfax County’s growth and sets goals to achieve equitable development in the county by striving to promote land use decisions that will provide investment and resources to all communities. The broad implications of growth and the guidance of the Countywide Strategic Plan serve as the foundation for the following land use vision and goals and objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”.  This language is a far cry from the objectives of years past that proposed to “...ensure growth takes place in accordance with criteria and standards designed to preserve, enhance, and protect existing residential areas and open space, such as farmland, and achieve an orderly and esthetic mix of residential, commercial/industrial facilities and open space without compromising the existing quality of life of existing residential development.”

With these changes, balancing development and existing neighborhood protections is no longer clearly prioritized.  New investment opportunities, such as data centers, could lead to increased conflicts with residential communities. According to staff, this is the expected direction of the new Plan if adopted, making it likely that residential protections will be further weakened in favor of new growth and uses.

Because this amendment and the staff report enclosed over 300 pages of material, and offered 34 days to review and elicit community comments on the proposal, Citizens For Great Falls submitted a request to the Fairfax County Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors on September 16, requesting a postponement of the scheduled Public Hearing on this amendment until the First quarter of 2026.  The request was made based on the complexity and overall importance of the Policy Plan Amendment but also because of the four other Public Hearings on other, unrelated, Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Oct. 8, An amendment on the Zoning Ordinance to reduce time required for plat and site plan review; Oct. 15 The Public Hearing on the Policy Plan Amendment; Oct. 16, A Public Hearing on the Zoning Amendment Utility Substations; and Oct. 22., a Public Hearing on existing standards for when a PRC Plan is not required and proposes to permit revisions to Planned Residential Community Plans using the provisions for minor modifications. 

All of these zoning amendments address land use and zoning issues. This compressed schedule leaves little time to digest and gather community input on important land use matters, especially as no statutory deadline is looming.

Some have commented that the fast pace of this amendment process to authorize and conduct public hearings leaves little time for opposition to develop.  Notwithstanding the complexity of the Policy Plan Amendment, public engagement is a critical part of the process, which requires sufficient time for publicity and interaction.

Citizens For Great Falls Board and Officers have had the opportunity to discuss this amendment, and comments will be submitted regarding the Policy Plan Amendment in addition to other scheduled amendments.

School Boundary Changes and Community Concerns:
BRAC Updates and School Redistricting

Citizens for Great Falls convened on September 30 for their monthly meeting, where members engaged in a thorough discussion of critical issues impacting our community. A significant focus was the progress of the Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC), specifically regarding the contentious matter of school redistricting that affects hundreds of families in our area.

Update on Issues

Members received a detailed update on the BRAC process from participants following the process who are also engaged with FAIRFacts Matters, who highlighted the impending release of new demographic maps and outlined potential programmatic changes in school offerings, ranging from advanced placement options to specialized career and technical education tracks. The discussion turned to the urgent challenges of addressing persistent overcrowding in some schools, with particular attention to the alarming trend of increasing transfer students and its direct implications for school enrollment numbers and resources.

Lack of Transparency Undermining the Process

Concerns were explicitly raised about the future use of the recently acquired Western High School. Members discussed the  three possible scenarios for its operation that have been described by School Board members and administrators: it could function as a traditional high school, it might specialize in academies that focus on specific disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), or it could be designated as a magnet school that draws students from various neighborhoods based on interest in particular programs. However, this purchase underscored the community’s frustration over the persistent lack of transparency in the BRAC process, raising serious questions about how these decisions could lead to significant changes in school boundaries and program availability.

The group expressed ongoing, legitimate concerns regarding the role of external consultants in the BRAC process, particularly regarding the potential for internal influence to shape the recommendations that affect student assignments and educational quality.

Community Concerns and Necessary Actions
The officers emphasized the importance of convening a county-wide meeting to address proposed school boundary changes and facilitate meaningful community input. The current level of public awareness and engagement is insufficient; therefore, establishing a public forum to discuss these concerns is essential.

There was unanimous consensus on the need for diligent monitoring of the BRAC process and potential administrative modifications that may impact school boundaries. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled after the draft maps are released later this month, at which time further steps will be determined and comprehensive community feedback will be solicited.

School Board Action May Influence
School Boundary Deliberations

On September 25, the Fairfax County School Board unanimously voted to begin plans for a new Advanced Academic Program (AAP) center at Poe Middle School in Annandale.  Currently, Poe is the only middle school in the Annandale High School Pyramid without an AAP.

Mason District School Board Member, Ricardy Anderson, advocated for this proposal, which was put forth by School Superintendent Michelle Reid.  Anderson emphasized that "...students will have the opportunity to remain in their community with their friends, and parents will not have to choose between full-time AAP services for their students or staying connected to their community." She noted that this plan will help Fairfax County Public Schools more equitably provide access to advanced programming and reduce transportation costs.

Implementing this plan will lead to changes in the school boundaries of several middle schools in the district. A decision from Superintendent Reid is expected before the School Board meeting on December 18.

Implications the Langley High School Pyramid and the Boundary Review Process
This action signals that the School Board and the Superintendent are running parallel to ongoing deliberations of the Boundary Review Advisory Committee, as they did in the hasty and undisclosed plan to purchase the former King Abdullah Academy.  At the very least, it represents a confusing strategy and suggests that there is little in the way of policy coordination.

For example, according to the proposal from FCPS staff, the Poe AAP Center would open at the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year.  This would require a boundary change that would reassign students from three other Middle Schools in that District to Poe. Consequently, Poe's enrollment could increase by an estimated 31%—or 273 students, according to data released by FCPS.

The data indicates that the new center, to be introduced in phases over three years, would be operating at 109% of its program capacity, a significant increase from its current utilization of 72%, by the end of the 2028-2029 school year.

Manipulating the process in this manner and impacting enrollment by School Board actions while BRAC members are moving forward is, as Citizens For Great Falls commented in connection with the King Abdullah purchase, not sound administrative practice.  Notably, this decision by the Board calls into question how school boundary decisions are being made while countywide school boundary plans are still under discussion.

School Board Member Melanie Meren, representing the Hunter Mill District, expressed concern about the timing of this decision, pointing out that final decisions regarding school boundaries and the proposed Western Middle School are due by January 2026. Meren highlighted the need for more public discussion about the data and best practices for delivering advanced academic instruction to students. 

However, Dranesville District Representative Robyn Lady observed, "This work is of great importance. I’m tired of busing kids to programs instead of sending them to their neighborhood school, where they have the programs they need." She added, "I strongly stand behind this."

Community engagement meetings regarding the proposal are scheduled for October 22 and 28. 

The school board anticipates receiving Superintendent Michelle Reid’s final recommendation in November, ahead of a vote on whether to initiate plans for the Poe AAP center on December 18.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

No Fairfax Casino Coalition Endorses
Creation of Virginia Gaming Commission:
Endorsement of Del. Paul Krizek’s and Sen. Lashrecse Aird’s 2026 legislative proposal
to establish a Virginia Gaming Commission

The No Fairfax Casino Coalition (NFCC) announced its support for the formation of a Virginia Gaming Commission. “The NFCC remains opposed to any legislation permitting casino development in Fairfax County.

They simultaneously acknowledged the necessity for robust oversight and regulation of gaming activities throughout the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the NFCC recommends implementing a moratorium on new gaming facilities and online platforms until the Commission is fully established and operational,” stated NFCC Chair Lynne Mulston.

The Coalition believes that a centralized commission will bring numerous advantages to Virginia residents and communities.

• Enhanced Ability to Address the Explosion of Gaming: In the past decade the volume and platforms for gaming in Virginia have grown exponentially. Legalized gaming activities include rapidly expanding on-line options, so-called gray market machines, sports betting, casinos, “racinos,” lotteries, and charitable gaming. A uniform and dedicated agency is needed to ensure that the gaming environment in its totality is consistent with Virginia’s economic and social needs.

• Centralized Oversight: Current oversight of gaming in Virginia is fragmented among several state agencies, or, for some forms of gaming, is non-existent. The establishment of a Virginia Gaming Commission will consolidate regulatory authority, ensuring a unified and consistent approach to oversight and enforcement for all forms of gambling.

• Improved Efficiency: By streamlining gaming regulations under one agency, the commission will enhance regulatory efficiency, concentrate gaming regulatory expertise under one roof, and provide clear, consistent enforcement across the industry.

• Enhanced Transparency: A dedicated commission will serve as a single point of contact for stakeholders, including citizens, law enforcement, and legislators, promoting greater accountability and open communication.

• Support for Problem Gambling: The commission will be equipped to deal with gambling addiction from multiple sources and will provide critical resources and support services for individuals and families impacted by problem gambling, strengthening safeguards within the industry.

• Protection of Citizens: Effective regulation by a centralized authority will help ensure fairness, integrity, and reputability in Virginia’s gaming sector, better protecting all Virginians from potential risks.

Additionally, the NFCC recommends that existing casino legislation include provisions specifying that only local governmental authorities are permitted to propose additions to the list of approved host sites. The Coalition also emphasizes the importance of retaining the referendum requirement outlined in Virginia Code 58.1-4107, which ensures resident participation through the ballot process.

The No Fairfax Casino Coalition commends Delegate Krizek and Senator Aird for their leadership in introducing this important legislation and urges lawmakers to prioritize the creation of a Virginia Gaming Commission during the 2026 Legislative Session.

About No Fairfax Casino Coalition:

No Fairfax Casino Coalition is a grassroots group of Fairfax citizens working to make it known to policymakers, the media, and developers that a casino development is not welcome in Fairfax County. Visit No Fairfax Casino website to see a listing of NFCC Partners in Opposition that represent well over 200,000 Fairfax residents.  https://nofairfaxcasino.org/

County Proposes Zoning Ordinance

on Utility Substations

The Fairfax County Planning Commission has scheduled an October 16 Public Hearing on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment addressing Electric Utility Substations. 

There are currently over 80 electrical substations in Fairfax County. Substations are a necessary part of the interconnected energy network. Substations serve various functions, including connecting transmission lines, moving bulk electricity over long distances, and stepping power down to the distribution level for customers.  With the proposed amendment, electrical substations would continue to be allowed in most zoning districts. Substations are an important part of public infrastructure; staff does not recommend that they be removed as an allowed use in any of the zoning districts where they are currently allowed.

The proposed changes in permissions are limited and are intended to align more closely with the permissions for data centers. Where a substation is proposed as part of a data center development, as is common today, consistent zoning permissions would encourage an appropriate layout based on the site-specific location and characteristics because both facilities would be reviewed through the same process.

Electrical Substations and Their Importance

It is understood that electrical substations are crucial components of the electrical distribution system, varying in size and function based on transmission or distribution needs. They are typically positioned near power generation sources and areas with high demand. This amendment is advanced for the purpose of accommodating future development on Data Centers in Fairfax County.

Data Center Growth in Northern Virginia

Northern Virginia is the largest data center market in North America, managing about 70% of global internet traffic with over 250 data centers. Power demand in Virginia is expected to rise by 85% in the next 15 years, with the data center industry projected to need 11,000 megawatts by 2035—nearly quadruple the amount required in 2022. The increasing use of artificial intelligence will likely further elevate power demands.  One industry source reported that as tech companies compete for compute, investors are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build out data center infrastructure across the country.

While many data centers are in remote sites with small populations and low residential power demand, some data centers are springing up in more populated areas where the electrical grid is already under strain, skyrocketing energy demand, and putting entire regions at risk of outages.  One recent example is the Plaza 500 Data Center to be located residents of the Bren Mar neighborhood in the Alexandria area of Fairfax County, that was approved but will now require a massive utility substation to be placed nearby. 

Researchers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory recently released the Power Stress Vulnerability Index, an indicator of vulnerability to electricity disruption based on grid load, redundancy, and historical outages.  They ranked the counties most vulnerable to grid stress—Fairfax County ranks in the top ten at Number 8, Prince William County, Number 2, and Loudoun County, Number 1. The devastating impact on energy resources related to data center development is inarguable in Northern Virginia.

Concerns Regarding Setback Requirements

But, the main concern is that more utility substations will be forthcoming to accommodate the increased demands.  Limited land availability in Fairfax for data centers or substations may push developers closer to residential areas. The large number of data centers already built or proposed in Fairfax County is expected to rise due to expanding data center projects. This pressure on residential zones has already been seen in the Plaza 500 Project, which plans a 461,000 square foot substation next to a large data center.

The proposed ordinance does not differentiate between substation sizes.  Specifically, section (5)(a) defines setbacks based on the "nearest substation structure" rather than the nearest residence. This could lead to variable requirements compared to the established zoning regulations. There is a stunning visual impact created by an electric utility substation when positioned near a residential community.  In simple terms, it cannot be made harmonious with residential architecture, unless concealed within a structure.  However, there is no likelihood that Dominion Energy will consider building Potemkin Village-like structures around substations to mitigate their visual effects.

But of equal importance to residents is that substations can produce significant noise, which is a concern for those nearby residents, especially at night.

While Virginia lacks statewide setback standards, jurisdictions like Prince William and Loudoun counties require a minimum of 300 feet and 100 feet of separation, respectively, from residential zones. Citizens for Great Falls argues for setbacks based on property boundaries, suggesting a minimum distance from substation equipment to residences.

Environmental Impacts – Noise

Substations operate continuously and may generate persistent noise. Although a sound study has been proposed, transformer hum is an identified concern. Citizens for Great Falls suggests conducting pre- and post-construction noise assessments, increasing the setback distance to 500 feet for residential areas and schools, and installing solid barriers as potential mitigation measures.

Fire and Explosion Hazards

Transformers and the possibility of electrical arcing can pose hazards to individuals and property near substations. The installation of battery energy storage systems in proximity to substations may also increase the risk of fires and explosions, which could affect nearby communities.

Conclusion

In summary, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment seeks to address the evolving needs of electric utility substations amid rapid data center expansion and increasing power demands. While substations remain an essential part of the county’s infrastructure, their proximity to residential areas raises legitimate concerns about noise, visual impact, and safety hazards. The ordinance’s approach to setbacks and lack of differentiation by substation size, as well as the absence of statewide standards, underscores the need for careful consideration of community welfare.

As Fairfax County prepares for continued growth in data centers and associated substations, a balanced strategy that safeguards residential neighborhoods and ensures a reliable energy supply will be vital. Ongoing engagement with stakeholders, adoption of best practices from neighboring jurisdictions, and implementation of mitigation measures can help address these challenges while supporting the region’s technological and economic progress.